Mortality in bullous pemphigoid: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of standardized mortality ratios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are inconsistent data on mortality rates in patients with bullous pemphigoid (BP). Trends in mortality in BP throughout the years are yet to be established. The aim of the present study was to study the mortality in BP patients relative to the general population and to estimate trends in standardized mortality over the past 30 years. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in Medline, Embase and Scopus (1823-2017). Reference lists of included studies were also searched for eligible studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to estimate pooled standardized mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-regression models were used to investigate the secular trends in SMR. Ten studies were included covering the period 1960-2015 (1736 patients, 746 deaths). Pooled all-cause SMR was 3.6 (95% CI, 2.6-5.0). There was no trend in all-cause SMR across the last three decades (regression coefficient 0.02 [change in logSMR/year]; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P = 0.545). In conclusion, there is a 3.6-fold increased mortality among patients with BP as compared with the age-matched general population. The excess mortality in BP has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it